Suchergebnisse

Objective: In this article, the author provides an overview of cognitive analysis methods and how they can be used to inform system analysis and design. Background: Human factors has seen a shift toward modeling and support of cognitively intensive work (e.g., military command and control, medical planning and decision making, supervisory control of automated systems). Cognitive task analysis and cognitive work analysis methods extend traditional task analysis techniques to uncover the knowledge and thought processes that underlie performance in cognitively complex settings. Methods: The author reviews the multidisciplinary roots of cognitive analysis and the variety of cognitive task analysis and cognitive work analysis methods that have emerged. Results: Cognitive analysis methods have been used successfully to guide system design, as well as development of function allocation, team structure, and training, so as to enhance performance and reduce the potential for error. Conclusions: A comprehensive characterization of cognitive work requires two mutually informing analyses: (a) examination of domain characteristics and constraints that define cognitive requirements and challenges and (b) examination of practitioner knowledge and strategies that underlie both expert and error-vulnerable performance. A variety of specific methods can be adapted to achieve these aims within the pragmatic constraints of particular projects. Application: Cognitive analysis methods can be used effectively to anticipate cognitive performance problems and specify ways to improve individual and team cognitive performance (be it through new forms of training, user interfaces, or decision aids).

Cooperative strategies of individuals within a distributed organization can contribute to increased efficiency of operations and safety. We examine these processes in the context of a particular work domain: railroad operations. Analyses revealed a variety of informal cooperative strategies that railroad workers have developed that span across multiple railroad crafts including roadway workers, train crews, and railroad dispatchers. These informal, proactive communications foster shared situation awareness across the distributed organization, facilitate work, and contribute to the overall efficiency, safety, and resilience to error of railroad operations. We discuss design implications for leveraging new digital technologies and location-finding systems to more effectively support these informal strategies, enhance shared situation awareness, and promote high reliability performance.

As methods in cognitive work analysis become more widely applied, questions regarding the impact of modeling choices and similarities in modeling efforts across projects and domains are increasingly relevant. However, no explicit comparison of models of similar systems has been reported. This paper compares independently developed work domain analysis (WDA) models of two command and control environments. Similarities in model content and the types of nodes included provide evidence that WDA techniques can capture fundamental elements regarding purposes and constraints. These points of agreement provide a common starting point for developing work domain representations of military command and control systems. The comparison also revealed differences between the models. Although differences in content reflected differences in scope of coverage and level of detail, other differences corresponded to more fundamental choices in modeling approach. These included the treatment of sensors, level of integration in the model, and representation of particular abstract constraints. Examination of these more fundamental differences pointed to important degrees of freedom in how to represent a WDA and clarified the implications of these modeling choices for guiding design. Actual or potential applications of this research include aiding analysts in making work domain modeling choices as well as producing work domain models of command and control environments.

The risks of unfamiliar technologies are often evaluated by comparing them with the risks of more familiar ones. Such risk comparisons have been criticized for neglecting critical dimensions of risky decisions. In a guide written for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Covello et al.(1) have summarized these critiques and developed a taxonomy that characterizes possible risk comparisons in terms of their acceptability (or objectionableness). We asked four diverse groups of subjects to judge the acceptability of 14 statements produced by Covello et al. as examples of their categories. We found no correlation between the judgments of acceptability produced by our subjects and those predicted by Covello et al..

A fundamental challenge in studying cognitive systems in context is how to move from the specific work setting studied to a more general understanding of distributed cognitive work and how to support it. We present a series of cognitive field studies that illustrate one response to this challenge. Our focus was on how nuclear power plant (NPP) operators monitor plant state during normal operating conditions. We studied operators at two NPPs with different control room interfaces. We identified strong consistencies with respect to factors that made monitoring difficult and the strategies that operators have developed to facilitate monitoring. We found that what makes monitoring difficult is not the need to identify subtle abnormal indications against a quiescent background, but rather the need to identify and pursue relevant findings against a noisy background. Operators devised proactive strategies to make important information more salient or reduce meaningless change, create new information, and off-load some cognitive processing onto the interface. These findings emphasize the active problem-solving nature of monitoring, and highlight the use of strategies for knowledge-driven monitoring and the proactive adaptation of the interface to support monitoring. Potential applications of this research include control room design for process control and alarm systems and user interfaces for complex systems.

AbstractDemands to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) are growing. These demands and the government standards arising from them both call for trustworthy AI. In response, we adopt a convergent approach to review, evaluate, and synthesize research on the trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences and propose a research agenda. Evidential and conceptual histories of research on trust and trustworthiness reveal persisting ambiguities and measurement shortcomings related to inconsistent attention to the contextual and social dependencies and dynamics of trust. Potentially underappreciated in the development of trustworthy AI for environmental sciences is the importance of engaging AI users and other stakeholders, which human–AI teaming perspectives on AI development similarly underscore. Co‐development strategies may also help reconcile efforts to develop performance‐based trustworthiness standards with dynamic and contextual notions of trust. We illustrate the importance of these themes with applied examples and show how insights from research on trust and the communication of risk and uncertainty can help advance the understanding of trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences.